Tech Primer: What you need to know about DDR4 memory

Jos

Posts: 3,073   +97
Staff

ddr4 puget memory ram guest

Most computer technologies only last a short time before they are replaced by something new, but DDR RAM is one of the few that tends to last a while before being replaced. The original DDR SDRAM was launched in 2000 and lasted three years before being replaced in 2003 by DDR2 SDRAM.

DDR2 lasted another four years before being replaced in 2007 with DDR3 SDRAM. Since then, it has been seven years without a new revision of DDR RAM, but DDR4 has finally been launched to replace DDR3 SDRAM.

Editor’s Note:
Guest author Matt Bach is the head of Puget Labs and has been part of Puget Systems, a boutique builder of gaming and workstation PCs, since the early days working in various subsets of production. This article was originally published on the Puget blog.

What's new in DDR4?

From a physical standpoint, DDR4 is the same width as DDR3, but is slightly taller by about .9mm. The main physical difference between DDR3 and DDR4 is that DDR4 uses 288 pins compared to the 240 pins on DDR3 and the key is in a different location.

In addition, the pins on DDR4 are not in a straight line but slightly curved with the middle sticking out further than the pins on the end.

ddr4 puget memory ram guest

Though there are ton of changes, the four major improvements of DDR4 SDRAM can be summed up in lower operating voltage, increased power saving enhancements, increased frequency, and improved chip density.

DDR3 RAM natively runs at 1.5V with low power modules running at 1.35V. Some manufacturers go outside of this, of course, but the majority of DDR3 RAM runs at this voltage. DDR4, however, natively runs at 1.2V with low power modules expected to run at just 1.05V. In addition, DDR4 supports a number of power saving enhancements including a new deep power-down mode to reduce power consumption when the system is in standby.

The lower operating voltage and power enhancements allows DDR4 RAM to draw less power (and consequently run cooler) than DDR3 RAM.

In terms of performance, DDR4 RAM will start at 2133MHz (which is roughly the upper limit for DDR3) and is expected to eventually reach speeds as high as 3200MHz. DDR4 chips are also able to be manufactured in densities of up to 16Gb (or 2GB) per chip, which is double the density of DDR3. This means that we should start seeing consumer-grade DDR4 RAM in capacities of 16GB per stick and possibly as large as 64GB per stick for server-grade memory.

Downsides to DDR4

Like most new technologies, DDR4 isn't perfect. While DDR4 is still new, memory sticks are expected to be anywhere from 20-50% more expensive than an equivalent DDR3 memory stick. As demand increases we expect the cost to come down drastically, but for now DDR4 is simply going to cost more.

The second problem is that even though DDR4 RAM will run at a higher frequency than DDR3, the timings are actually much looser.

While a DDR3-2133MHz stick normally runs at around CL10-CL11, current DDR4-2133Mhz sticks run at CL15. This isn't unusual and is pretty much exactly what we saw when DDR3 was introduced, but it does mean that DDR4 likely won't be any faster than DDR3 -- at least at first.

In fact, when comparing performance between the Core i7 5960X and 4960X, Geekbench reports only slightly higher memory scores from the system with DDR4-2133MHz memory versus the one with DDR3-1600MHz memory (5691 versus 5382). Once higher frequency DDR4 becomes available and the timings tighten up a bit, we should start seeing the performance benefits of DDR4.

Closing Remarks

System memory is a very important aspect of modern computer systems, but today's RAM is simply not a bottleneck in most applications. Faster memory is certainly not a bad thing, but the performance possibilities are not really the main benefit of DDR4 over DDR3.

In fact, since DDR4 memory requires a completely different chipset and CPU from DDR3, it is actually very difficult to benchmark the performance benefits of DDR4 RAM. Right now, the more accurate comparison is actually comparing the entire DDR4/X99/Haswell-E platform to a DDR3 platform, as shown in this Core i7 5960X vs. 4960X Performance Comparison article.

ddr4 puget memory ram guest

Rather than performance the two things to be the most excited about with DDR4 RAM is the lower operating voltage and the increased storage densities. Lower voltage components simply run cooler than their higher voltage counterparts and are generally more reliable. There are of course exceptions to this, but as a general rule of thumb I have found it to be fairly accurate.

If picking one aspect of DDR4 as the single most important one, the storage density would easily be my choice. It is a very unassuming aspect of DDR4, but the fact that DDR4 memory should eventually be available in sticks that are twice the size of DDR3 sticks is almost a necessity for DDR4.

As programs and data become larger and more complex, larger RAM capacities is going to become more and more important. Already, about 33% of the X79-based systems sold at Puget Systems since January 2014 have maxed out the amount of memory that can be installed in the system by using 8x 8GB sticks or 64GB of RAM in total. This is a huge portion of Puget's X79 sales, so once DDR4 RAM becomes available in larger capacities we fully expect DDR4 to become very desirable in high-end workstations.

Masthead image by Daniel Dionne via Flickr

Permalink to story.

 
Besides Server and possibly workstation application is there really a necessity to have more than 32GB of RAM in a home desktop, even more so at 64GB of RAM. I've had 12GB since the launch of X58 and have never needed more, let alone 64GB. The only logical application for home use would be a RAM Drive, other than that I see it as a waste of money to equip a system with so much RAM you'll never use. Not to mention by the time you are using all that RAM the rest of the system will likely be a bottleneck. Back in the day you rated a computer based on how much RAM it had, just people who don't know any better still use that thought process when buying new computers, and sadly that's the vast majority.
 
Besides Server and possibly workstation application is there really a necessity to have more than 32GB of RAM in a home desktop, even more so at 64GB of RAM. I've had 12GB since the launch of X58 and have never needed more, let alone 64GB. The only logical application for home use would be a RAM Drive, other than that I see it as a waste of money to equip a system with so much RAM you'll never use. Not to mention by the time you are using all that RAM the rest of the system will likely be a bottleneck. Back in the day you rated a computer based on how much RAM it had, just people who don't know any better still use that thought process when buying new computers, and sadly that's the vast majority.

It depends actually ^^. It's not that they are pushing everyone for larger capacity of RAM. It's just that everyone has certain needs. And for instance if there are individuals who really are using as much multitasking as possible(with virtual software, etc), then surely it will be a necessity for those individuals. Everyone has different needs. But I agree that some just install so much just for fun or bragging rights =p.
I myself do need 16GB for now(right now it's just at 8GB). Next year I'll go for a new build with AMD fx8 and just buy me a set of 16GB DDR3 as they might be cheaper for now =). It's best to wait for prices to come down, glitches to be worked out and performance to be increased don't you agree?
 
Recently purchased an X99 w/ 32GB DDR4. The latency doesn't concern me a whole lot. The ram capacity is great, esp for databases and ramdisks.

When 16GB sticks come out, thinking of throwing another 64GB in.
 
DDR4 looks to be pretty cool, although nothing world breaking. By the time I upgrade from my X58 to X99 I am hoping they have GPU's that run 4K much better then the disappointments we have now.
 
While a DDR3-2133MHz stick normally runs at around CL10-CL11, current DDR4-2133Mhz sticks run at CL15. This isn't unusual and is pretty much exactly what we saw when DDR3 was introduced, but it does mean that DDR4 likely won't be any faster than DDR3 -- at least at first.
As RAM speed goes up, the latency numbers always increase. So where's the surprise here?

I'm thinking the latency numbers remain somewhat speed/ latecy proportional to earlier incarnations of DDR.
 
Though we're not seeing dense modules yet. I think Samsung showed a prototype 32GB single DIMM, but that's about it.
 
Not buying my next laptop until next year Skymont + DDR4. Likely a MacBook Pro Retina.
 
So disappointed in the whole ddr4, socket x99 stuff. I was waiting for it for ages but I have been thinking lately I might just buy a 4790k and Z97 for what works out to be about half the money an X99 setup would cost.
 
Besides Server and possibly workstation application is there really a necessity to have more than 32GB of RAM in a home desktop, even more so at 64GB of RAM. I've had 12GB since the launch of X58 and have never needed more, let alone 64GB. The only logical application for home use would be a RAM Drive, other than that I see it as a waste of money to equip a system with so much RAM you'll never use. Not to mention by the time you are using all that RAM the rest of the system will likely be a bottleneck. Back in the day you rated a computer based on how much RAM it had, just people who don't know any better still use that thought process when buying new computers, and sadly that's the vast majority.
Adobe CS/CC suites.....
I wish I had went for the Quad channel ram in my graphic design computer we use for signs so I could have went up to 32gigs of ram. I easily max out 16gigs when I get to working in Photoshop. Even 2ft x 3ft scans @ 400dpi with a few color adjustment layers. Most things I built in Illustrator, but even then when you get a lot of effects and transparencies going on it uses a lot of ram (Speaking of which has anyone else notice that Illustrator CC 2014 seems to have worse performance with glows and drop shadows than previous CS versions and saves to larger files?)
But some effects are just easier to do in Photoshop or not practical in Illustrator, then you end up with HUGE files.....
 
In fact, when comparing performance between the Core i7 5960X and 4960X, Geekbench reports only slightly higher memory scores from the system with DDR4-2133MHz memory versus the one with DDR3-1600MHz memory (5691 versus 5382). Once higher frequency DDR4 becomes available and the timings tighten up a bit, we should start seeing the performance benefits of DDR4.

Hold on, so they compared DDR3-1600Mhz to DDR4-2133Mhz? Brilliant.

Honestly, I see this whole DDR4 technology as a capitalization scheme and I think the Geekbench report makes no sense. I mean, I get the fact that DDR4 runs at .4V less then DDR3, but why did they use DDR3 RAM with such a low frequency (and probably bad timings too)? My system is currently running DDR3-2133Mhz, and if they compared DDR3-1600Mhz to DDR4-2133Mhz and DDR4 got slightly higher results, then I take it my DDR3-2133Mhz (which has better timings as well) performs about the same if not better than the DDR4 (although running at 1.6V).

Perhaps this is why Geekbench used such low-frequency DIMMs. I see absolutely nothing (besides worse performance) really worth the 20-50% price increase. I mean, who wouldn't want to pay for worse performance. I totally understand that this DDR4 will be the future, and will be the standard for all new chipsets, at this point is totally not worth it, and you have to ask yourself, is it even smart to go with a DDR4 chipset and shell out the extra bucks and get worse memory performance than the best DDR3 available now which is probably significantly cheaper (both for chipset and memory).
 
if they compared DDR3-1600Mhz to DDR4-2133Mhz and DDR4 got slightly higher results, then I take it my DDR3-2133Mhz (which has better timings as well) performs about the same if not better than the DDR4 (although running at 1.6V).
I don't think it would really matter that much.

 
Hold on, so they compared DDR3-1600Mhz to DDR4-2133Mhz? Brilliant.

Honestly, I see this whole DDR4 technology as a capitalization scheme and I think the Geekbench report makes no sense. I mean, I get the fact that DDR4 runs at .4V less then DDR3, but why did they use DDR3 RAM with such a low frequency (and probably bad timings too)? My system is currently running DDR3-2133Mhz, and if they compared DDR3-1600Mhz to DDR4-2133Mhz and DDR4 got slightly higher results, then I take it my DDR3-2133Mhz (which has better timings as well) performs about the same if not better than the DDR4 (although running at 1.6V).
).
Maybe for specific benches, but last I looked the actual real world performance difference from 1600MHz to 2200Mhz (games, apps) is next to nothing.
There is a difference at 1333Mhz and slower though.
 
Besides Server and possibly workstation application is there really a necessity to have more than 32GB of RAM in a home desktop, even more so at 64GB of RAM. I've had 12GB since the launch of X58 and have never needed more, let alone 64GB. The only logical application for home use would be a RAM Drive, other than that I see it as a waste of money to equip a system with so much RAM you'll never use. Not to mention by the time you are using all that RAM the rest of the system will likely be a bottleneck. Back in the day you rated a computer based on how much RAM it had, just people who don't know any better still use that thought process when buying new computers, and sadly that's the vast majority.
You are right, very few people would need it. But it isn't out of the ordinary for people to run (or want to run) multiple virtual machines.
 
Hold on, so they compared DDR3-1600Mhz to DDR4-2133Mhz? Brilliant.

Honestly, I see this whole DDR4 technology as a capitalization scheme and I think the Geekbench report makes no sense. I mean, I get the fact that DDR4 runs at .4V less then DDR3, but why did they use DDR3 RAM with such a low frequency (and probably bad timings too)? My system is currently running DDR3-2133Mhz, and if they compared DDR3-1600Mhz to DDR4-2133Mhz and DDR4 got slightly higher results, then I take it my DDR3-2133Mhz (which has better timings as well) performs about the same if not better than the DDR4 (although running at 1.6V).
Is there a DDR3 system out there that has stock 2133MHz timings? Or do you need to overclock for that? Highest I've seen is 1866MHz but may be wrong.
 
It's nice to see someone in the industry admit that there is little if any performance benefit from moving to DDR4 from DDR3, especially from low voltage DDR3. More importantly it is important to understand that DDR3 is not a system bottleneck as I have demonstrated to people over and over in actual test of real applications.

The increased cost of DDR4 and it's topology that requires replacement of all RAM preventing just adding RAM as can be done with DDR3 and prior versions makes DDR4 undesirable for most PC enthusiasts, especially since the increased frequency offers no tangible system performance advantages. DDR4 being intended primarily for server use offers little value for PC enthusiasts yet it is over-hyped as RAM suppliers desperately attempt to deceive consumers into believing that the faster frequency DDR4 can deliver significant system performance improvements, when it can't nor can faster than 1600 MHz. DDR3 for CPUs and 2133 MHz. DDR3 for APUs. People should conduct real world test instead of being misled by benchmarks that assume the RAM is saturated 100% of the time, which it never is in any PC.

Knowledge is power but ignorance is bliss.
 
Hold on, so they compared DDR3-1600Mhz to DDR4-2133Mhz? Brilliant.

Honestly, I see this whole DDR4 technology as a capitalization scheme and I think the Geekbench report makes no sense. I mean, I get the fact that DDR4 runs at .4V less then DDR3, but why did they use DDR3 RAM with such a low frequency (and probably bad timings too)? My system is currently running DDR3-2133Mhz, and if they compared DDR3-1600Mhz to DDR4-2133Mhz and DDR4 got slightly higher results, then I take it my DDR3-2133Mhz (which has better timings as well) performs about the same if not better than the DDR4 (although running at 1.6V).
).
Maybe for specific benches, but last I looked the actual real world performance difference from 1600MHz to 2200Mhz (games, apps) is next to nothing.
There is a difference at 1333Mhz and slower though.


As noted below there is no tangible system performance gains on CPU powered desktops with RAM frequencies greater than 1600 MHz. and 2133 MHz. for APU powered PCs because DDR3 RAM at these frequencies does not create a system bottleneck. In addition the DDR3 timings makes even less system performance diff than the frequency makes - when running real applications, not bogus RAM benches which assume the RAM is saturated 100% of the time, which it never is. In the old days before DDR3 timings and frequency did matter but they are no longer a system bottleneck as this article points out early on.

The bottom line is DDR4 is primarily for server use and offers no tangible system performance advantage to desktop or laptop PCs. In addition DDR4 offers minimal power advantages over DDR3 LV so there is no reason to even consider DDR4 unless you are stuck with a system that will only run DDR4. DDR3 LV is the smart choice for most people and you don't get any value from higher frequency or lower timings, contrary to the hype from the RAM purveyors.

You also do not need more than 4GB-8GB of DDR3 RAM for most desktop applications. Few people can effectively use more than 8GB of RAM even if they have a 64-bit O/S that actually supports more than 8GB. of RAM. (Note: Not all Windoze 64-bit O/Ss support higher quantities of DDR3 RAM).
 
Back